Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests?

One of the things that irks me the most about cricket, is the loss of play and the inability to get all the scheduled overs in five days. It could be due to rain, bad light, or even (and this is the worst) a side taking unusually long to get ready between balls just to delay.

If we had a sixth day scheduled for all the tests, and only the overs that were left over from the previous days would be bowled...would you all like it? I think that anything that allows 450 overs to be bowled in a test match is a good thing for cricket. If all the scheduled overs were bowled, then there would be no play on the sixth day of the match.

Its not such a bad idea. If it seems like a result could come of it and alot of time was missed, then why not. Nothing is more frustrating then dedicating 5 days of your life for a test match for it to end in a draw.

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

When I first went to test matches (albeit 40 years or more ago) you used to get AT LEAST 100-105 overs in a full day, and even then people moaned about the halcyon days of 20 overs an hour.

I thought that people were supposed to be better, stronger, faster nowadays (at least some on here keep telling me so) so surely we should be getting through MORE overs on account of the sheer athleticism of the fielding side and the bowlers racing back to their marks? (Can't blame Monty for that yet).

Instead, bowlers and fielding sides in general seem to get about the field between balls slower than Ronaldo on Dope.

I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on.

Obviously. You say that as if it's a bad thing - if an issue arises in an ongoing match/series, people are going to talk about it.

There was talk of adding a sixth day to some Test matches in the Pakistan v England series as well, because of all the time lost to bad light. I don't think it's a particularly bad idea - the problem comes with scheduling, especially in back-to-back Test matches.

Yes, because suggesting it now will mean ICC will implement it tonight and we are going to have a game tomorrow. This would have helped England in the Ashes too. And it would have been good for cricket in Pakistan too.

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

So why can't we do both? If tests are over in 4 days, then great. You don't HAVE to play the sixth day.

There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start.

6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change.

If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals.

Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems.

What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6.

I think we are fine as we are. Losing time and having that get in the way of a victory is very frustrating. It is how ever part of the game. I still have sleepless nights over West Indies v England, Trinidad, 1990.

If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits